|
|
Enron Mail |
Cc: melissa.laing@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: melissa.laing@enron.com X-From: Michelle Cash X-To: Hoyt Thomas X-cc: Melissa Laing X-bcc: X-Folder: \Michelle_Cash_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: Cash-M X-FileName: mcash.nsf Privileged and Confidential This email contains legal advice Hoyt and Melissa, I am assuming that we are discussing contract personnel who provide some sort of services for MG/RW. It looks like there may be some key personnel we want to employ, but that there are many whom we don't want to hire. I am not really familiar with the specific facts here. The question of a joint employer arises when a company treats its contract personnel like its own -- by setting compensation, controlling their activities, engaging in promotion/discipline/termination, etc. decisions, and other ways in which an employer treats its own employees. So, if the plan is to have workers doing the same thing, with one as a contractor, and one as an employee, there could be some issues, particularly if they share a supervisor. Unfortunately, that often is the case with contract personnel. If there are distinctions among the various responsibilities of these workers -- and like workers are treated similarly -- the risk may be reduced. It is cleanest, however, to use all of these workers through the contracting agency for a while (assume we don't want to hire them all, which is the other alternative). Then, the company may want to make selected offers to people who may be in a managerial role or have some other distinction from the bulk of the contract workers. I would like additional information on this situation before reaching a definitive conclusion. So, let's try to discuss it. I am booked until about 11 this morning, but am available after that. Michelle Hoyt Thomas@ENRON 08/08/2000 04:21 PM To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Melissa Laing/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Priviliged and Confidential communication to my attorney Re: Henry Bath LA Michelle, I guess emails will get to you sooner if I remember to add you to the addressee list! Sorry. Hoyt ---------------------- Forwarded by Hoyt Thomas/NA/Enron on 08/08/2000 04:20 PM --------------------------- Hoyt Thomas 08/08/2000 02:01 PM To: Melissa Laing/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Priviliged and Confidential communication to my attorney Re: Henry Bath LA Melissa, my concern is that we may get hit with what is called a "co-employment suit" in the US. This is where an agency employee claims that he/she was treated like an employee, therefore he/she should get employee benefits (vs. benefits from the agency company, which are probably weak). Since we did a share purchase of MG, if the agency employees filed a suit against MG claiming that they are really employees, I think that we would have to defend it. I am not an attorney, but I am going to send this to Michelle Cash, who can advise us on the position we should take. I would think that if we single out certain employees to become Enron employees and the remainder stay as agency employees, this would enhance the legal position of the agency employees (versus everyone staying as an agency employee). Michelle, can you help us with this one? Thanks. Melissa, I also think we should minimize distribution on this discussion . . . Enron Europe From: Melissa Laing @ ECT 08/08/2000 10:57 AM To: Hoyt Thomas/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Jeanie Slone/LON/ECT@ECT, Melanie Doyle/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Henry Bath LA Hi Hoyt, I have today spoken to Ed Dablin regarding Henry Bath LA. We discussed how the employees seem to feel that they are Enron employees, although they are infact agency workers. Ed confirmed that Martha and half a dozen other employees quite clearly should become Enron employees and should get applicable benefits. The other employees (who are mainly manual employees) he does not feel should become Enron employees and should remain as agency staff. He realises that the original granting of Share Options has slightly "muddied the water" with regard to whether these employees are employees of Enron or the agency. He was not involved with the original decision to grant these employees Share Options. We discussed the issues (in broad terms, as I could not remember all of the specific issues) and he is aware that making a limited number of individuals Enron employees, whilst the others remain agency workers, is not an easy thing to do. However, this is his ideal scenario. How viable is it that we can do this for him? He also made the point that Martha is the most senior executive in Henry Bath Inc. and is one of his most valuable employees. Regards Melissa
|